February 2, 2010

... according to a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll. Yes, we have to stop first and wonder how good are the Daily Kos/Research 2000 pollsters. I picked up this story at Talking Points Memo, where there's no information about why I should trust this poll. How did they locate their 2,000 "self-identified" Republicans, who, TPM tells us represent "the psyche of the minority party's base"?

And I know that plenty of conservatives won't call themselves "Republicans." I'd like to see a poll that delves into the reasons people who call themselves "Republicans" choose to call themselves "Republicans" and why others reject the label, despite being conservative.

Also, I wonder if some people who aren't conservative at all lie to pollsters — especially a poll with a lefty name like "Daily Kos" — so they can skew the results and give those folks the results they imagine the poll is designed to produce: that non-liberals are evil/stupid.

• 73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools....

• 31% want contraception to be outlawed.

Wonderful anti-Republican PR results. They justify the fears people who are not Republicans have about the Republican Party. I don't like thinking people are this extreme, and I wish I could see how the questions were worded. The full survey (and the questions) were not out at the time TPM put up this post, and releasing the results in this form reinforces my suspicion that the motivation of the poll is to generate anti-Republican PR.

How would you word questions to ask "self-identified" Democrats if it were your goal to generate anti-Democrat PR? How would you smoke out all the flaky and stupid suggestions they'd go along with if a pollster offered it in a rational-sounding form and didn't interject amazement at the answers? Then how would you reword the questions to publish the results to make the best propaganda for your side?

(I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?" and "Are you sure?" in a shaming way that made it obvious they were trying to get people to say they supported laws restricting abortion so they could attack some politician — probably Russ Feingold. It was really unprofessional!)

ADDED: Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence: "As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.

Why dont you take that same poll here? Bet the results would be the same. Mark already started that ball rolling. Commenters on this blog routinely echo the results of this poll, however faullty it may be.

Commenters on this blog routinely echo the results of this poll, however faullty it may be.

I guess we all see what we're pre-programmed to see.

Personally I think Obama is a socialist at heart. He pretty much admitted that's where his leanings were in college. He certainly surrounded himself with like minded people throughout his life so I just have to assume he has a warm place in his heart for all things State run.

I think Mark is simply pointing out that if suitable qualifications to be President are being a former community organizer turned junior Senator for 2 years then yes, Palin would be just as qualified for the job.

"I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?""

Not sure if I would use 'pollster' here. The person talking to you was not the pollster, but the interviewer (who is most likely a part-time worker making just a bit over minimumn wage). There can be a big gap between the professionalism and neutrality desired by the pollster and interviewers he/she employs.

I spent 10 years employed are a public opinion research center, and one of the things I learnined was that it is not uncommon for interviewers to go rougue and push their own agendas. Some of my favorites from my time spent monitoring interviewers during calls: The radical libertarian we had to fire for constantly substituting 'Rethuglican' and 'Dim-o-crat' into the party identification question. Or, how can I forget the interviewer who in a study about race and elections always mis-recorded responses by white respondentsto make them seem more hostile to minorities.

----

Anybody know if the full questionnaire and/or results are available anywhere online?

Yesterday's episode ("Opposing Obama") of the BBC Documentaries podcast featured a British reporter interviewing people through America's Appalachian coal belt. He gathered quite a few opinions that eloquently demonstrated some of the things listed here, especially the racism.

As far as Obama not being born in the country, I'd still like to know why he doesn't just release the original, doctor-signed copy of his birth certificate. It would make all the doubters look foolish and put the whole thing to rest. Why spend all that money on lawyers fighting to not have to release it? Why put up such a fight over something that should be trivial?

Given the recent bailouts, begun under Bush, nor are the Republicans are not very good at these things.

No argument there and is probably why they were run out of office in 06 and 08. Evidently the Democrats didn't get the message considering they're continuing the same policies (on steroids no less) as the GOP and are wondering why their political fortunes are looking so bleak.

I live in East Tennessee, and it is really, really red here. I would say that it is certainly one of the most socially conservative areas of the country. I’m quite sure that I don’t know anyone who would agree with most of these statements:

I don’t know anyone who thinks that Obama should be impeached.

I know lots of people who think that Obama is a socialist, and I think that he has socialistic tendencies (Bush did, too, but not nearly to the same extent).

I’ve never met a birther. Never. I think they’re like the boogyman, something made up to scare children.

I’ve never even heard (or seen on the net) anyone make a case that Obama didn’t legitimately win the election. See above, re: boogyman.

Sarah Palin is definitely more qualified than Obama. Not that that is anything to brag about.

Never met anyone who would want to secede, and never even heard anyone make such a case.

Never heard of anyone who said gays shouldn’t be allowed to teach, but I would accept that as a minority position around here. Certainly not 73%, but I’d believe 25% or so of my neighbors thought this.

I have never met and never heard of anyone who wants contraception outlawed. Despite a lifetime of conservative Catholicism, I’ve only met a handful of people who believe it to be wrong personally, and I’ve never seen them try to push that on anyone else. (I’ve always been pretty open about my pill use, too).

Yeah, yeah, I know that Nixon couldn’t win because I don’t know anyone who voted for him and so on, but I’m right here in the reddest of the red, so if these opinions are out there, I should know about them. This poll is absolute bull. Thanks for calling it out, Professor.

Anything put out by the DK/2000 folks is under deep suspicion of being agitprop fodder for dimwit leftist bloggers [pardon the redundancy].

On paper, Palin as a former mayor, governor, and negotiator of a major pipeline contract with a big oil company, had FAR more experience in real governance than community organizer BHO [I did that in St. Louis], Senate retardo gaffe machine Biden, and even John McCain, who had a tad of executive branch experience as a Navy officer.

As for the rest of the press's leftist choirboy/girl chorus, Pogo's "More than half of what they produce is bullshit, the rest is propaganda." is an admirable summary of their worth.

The poll is from KOS. One could assume that it is not legitimate and possibly made up. A total fabrication. It sounds like a KOS/Onion poll.

It is KOS! Only died in the wool radical raging hormonal teenagers read Kos. And the mildy curious.

Of course the poll will prove what all of the KOS kids already believe. KOS is the political bathroom wall. But, hey, this is America, Markos is making a buck, and laughing all the way to the bank. God bless his little mercenary soul.

They confuse Republicans with conservatives, independents, and libertarians; the two only sometimes overlap.

I have a feeling that, if this is aimed at "Republicans", what they really want is for RINOs (or Assistant Democrats (love it), as someone called them) to feel guilty about not reaching out across the aisle to their friends in the Democrat Party on BarryCare and card check.

Mark said...

After a year of watching Obama in action, I don't think that it is too much of stretch to think that Sarah Palin would be more qualified as president.

MnMark: "As far as Obama not being born in the country, I'd still like to know why he doesn't just release the original, doctor-signed copy of his birth certificate."

Two completely off-the-wall, but plausible theories:

1) The boogy-man birthers (who mostly don't exist) are good targets to beat up on. Observe how often Obama-ites, when they can't defend their positions, just try to lump any and all opposition with them.

2) I don't know if birth certificates list(ed) race, but his mom was white. If it describes him as caucasian, woudn't that take the shine off of his "everything I do is historical" cred a little bit?

(I don't follow the birther stories, so for all I really understand, there's nothing else to be released, but if there is, those are my theories.)

I for one am relieved that the poll did not question opinion that would reveal that the Republican base also favors molesting children, abandoning Haitians, and eating raw garlic. They missed the really shameful opinions by a mile. It's back to the poll question drawing board again for you Daily Kos guys. I suggest viewing Borat Comes to America for ideas.

If you imagine the process of hiring poll interviewers: how they solicited, who refers them, etc, then they are likely to be from the partisan side doing the poll. The interviewer is probably the most biasing part of the process, assuming the questions are fair. Most polls are done to confirm desired outcomes. When they don't. they don't get published. You need to keep that in mind.

The opinion for me that is most important is: Do you believe socialist policies help the economy. You would have to use a different word. Nobody is a socialist, even when they are. That opinion is the most important right now and clearly defines who helps and who is the enemy.

Most people on the left think that conservatism is a terrible disease, and most people on the right think that leftism is a major disease. To cure it would mean to wipe it out by instituting a one-party system.

You've gotta hand it to the liberal propaganda machine, otherwise known as the MSM, the portrayal of Republicans as "strange man, strange" has kept millions of mediocrities from even considering an alternative to big government enslavement.

I've been involved in Republican politics since 1988 (state & federal campaigns) and I've never met anyone who wants to outlaw contraceptives.

I'm a conservative and I am all for contraceptives. Best way to fight poverty is to reduce the number of out of wedlock pregnancies. Much more effective than sending a monthly check to the expectant mother.

If the Leadership is polling and testing group reactions to the memes, then The leadership is acting from a rewritten script every few months. That must be hard to keep up with. That is one good reason to use a two party system. The voters have to take a leader with an opinion that is acceptable to 51% of the voters, adjusted by the Electoral College system. Otherwise the angry splinter groups could elect their own viewpoint candidates and have no influence. Is the Daily Kos hinting here that the coming GOP landslide victories will be tainted, no matter what? Rejecting a great Leader like Barak Obama is shameful ignorance, or something.

Hoosier Daddy: "I'm a conservative and I am all for contraceptives. Best way to fight poverty is to reduce the number of out of wedlock pregnancies."

A world of agreement here! I'm generally no fan of handouts, but I would pony up for free sterilization (not compulsory, I know someone will try to spin it as if I'd said it that way) for anyone continuously on welfare or behind on child support. (Amy Alkon wrote about a charity doing that recently, although I can't remember what it is called off-hand.)

The more I think about it, the more I think this poll is nothing but bullshit.

For the sake of argument, let's say 1/3 of the people are Republican, 1/3 Democrats and 1/3 are Independents. That means you would have to call 6,000 people to get the results of 2,000 self-identified Republicans. I'll bet if you called 6,000 people, less than 1/3 would even talk to you. The numbers don't add up.

I'm a conservative.. I have to register as something to vote in the Primaries in California so I registered as a Republican so I could vote against Kerry. Futile in California but after years of being an Independent and realizing I didn't get a voice on the major candidates I switched.

I agree with #2. Obama is a socialist or worse.

Acorn may not have completely stole the election, but they sure gave it a good college try. What stole the election from Hillary was the corrupt caucus process and the corrupt Obama campaign. Hillary would also have won.

I would like to secede from California. State of Jefferson FTW.

The rest is just a bunch of Democrat wet dreams about what they THINK Republicans are like.

I never said anything like that. I just stated a fact. He was the least qualified, period. I don't think Palin was the most either. I don't think the most qualified should necessarily get elected either.

I also think Palin was more qualified than Hilary. I want the government reduced in size, expense and corruption. Palin has experience doing just that. Hilary has experience doing the opposite. Experience at the desired work is what counts. You don't hire an experienced accountant to do your plumbing.

Its not a question of the most qualified MadMan but I think its safe to say that Obama was by far the least qualfied of the candidate. He won purely on charisma and being the anti-Bush and not out of any display of leadership or policymaking. That much is clear based upon his performance after one year. Was Hillary the most qualified? No but light years more than the very junior former Senator.

Why not Hillary next time? After all, she's been 1st lady, Senator, Secretary of State. Certainly she's more qualified than someone like, oh, Sarah Palin, who has only been a qu^H^Hsitting governor!

Why not? Lets put it this way, I would not have compared Hillary's qualifications to Palins back in 08. I think the basic exposure to the White House during Bill's reign have her much more insight to DC politics than Obama ever had. I doubt Hillary would have displayed the same arrogance of 'I won' that Obama did only to go crawling to the GOP because he now realizes he can't even lead his own fucking party.

Obama won on force of personality. That's all and a whole lot of people are coming to the realization that they have been had.

I disagree. Reagan was running against a sitting President (I know that's obliquely your point). Why should anyone run against a sitting President -- who automatically will be more qualified than any other candidate?

For the record, the phrasing for the Kos question about gays teaching was by Kevin Jennings, Obama's Safe Schools Czar, and read: Should gays be allowed to teach fisting to middle school and high school students?

Only the ones that have not realized that the new president would be Joe Biden. If the words "President Joe Biden" don't scare the hell out of you, you have not been paying attention.

• 63% think Obama is a socialist.

That number seems low.

• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president.

Let's see, experience on the town council, governor. Nah, that can't possibly match up to Obama's years as a community organizer, state senator, and 2 whole years in the US senate, could it? The sad fact of the matter is that Palin, as inexperienced as she is, had more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that Palin was unqualified to be Vice President but Joe Biden is?

This poll is brilliant!! It exactly tracks what the readers of the Daily Kos think Republicans think. They made this up but it is wonderful in its embedded stupidity: the left which long ago left rational thought by the wayside in favor of deeming itself the party of smart reveals its ignorance of the opposition by resorting to the most idiotic notions of very far out right wingers. Wonderful. I myself did a poll of 67,000 self identified Democrats:

78.3% believe GWB is worse than Hitler99% believe that that 9/11 was an inside job100% believe the U.S. attacked Iraq to benefit Halliburton14% believe that talk radio constitutes free speech2% think that Republicans can read87% believe that African Americans need Democrats to survive day to day

Maybe I misunderstood MM's question. But in any case why does the fact of being a sitting president make that person more qualified than any person running against him because they have not yet experienced what it is to be president? Does Obama give any evidence after a year in the office of seeing the presidency as more than community organizer writ large?

I thought MM's question had to do with credentials. In that sense no one has ever been more credentialled to be president than George Bush, Reagan's chief opponent for the Republican nomination in 1980. But does a fab resume equate to being qualified? No. Reagan was more qualified than Bush or Carter because of his rock solid belief system, which was and is the traditional American belief system or ethos.

Andrew said: "Research 2000 is a decently reputable survey firm. To dismiss these result out of hand would be as shortsighted as the democrats that trash Gallup and Rasmussen."

1) Kos commissioned it, which is already a strike against their credibility. I would be skeptical if Rush Limbaugh commissioned a poll, even if it was done by Gallup.

2) The absurd results are just as much a reason to dismiss it as the creator, as many above have indicated.

3) I'm not very familiar with Research2000, so maybe they are decently reputable, but you're going to have to do more than just say that they are to convince me. We're familiar with Rassmusen's and Gallup's methodology and results. As Althouse pointed out, details of the methodology are sorely lacking here.

Chuck said: "Commenters on this blog routinely echo the results of this poll, however faullty it may be." That's what I was going to say...

I think that there's been a lot of agreement that Palin is more qualified than Obama (and that that's nothing to brag about) and that Obama is socialistic, and commenters have backed up their opinions on those matters.

Can you point to anytime that commenters on this blog have echoed any of the other results of this poll? Because those two are only a small and subjective part of the whole.

I think that there's been a lot of agreement that Palin is more qualified than Obama

I'll agree to that provided its understood in the same context as a first year med student is more qualified to perform surgery than a first year law student.

I won't dispute the findings of the poll mainly because you can always find extremes on either side of the political spectrum. This one simply confirms the pre-disposed notions of the people who commissioned the poll. Nothing more.

You would think that fake pollsters would do a better job, such as trying to sound somewhat reasonable with most of the questions, while slipping in one or two horrid beliefs. That would be much more plausible than this garbage.

Al Franken sure knew what "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was from his own experience on the radio.

I think Obama is a Marxist and that my neighborhood semi-stray (i.e. mooching) cat is more qualified to be president.

I'm also for secession of the non-coastal west and have been since I moved out here 25 years ago and realized how ill served it is by Washington. (The division would roughly be the eastern border of Colorado and would likely include Texas. For practical reasons, I'd let Southern California in. My guess is that Alberta would join.)

Is this a surprise? A larger percentage of Dems wanted Bush impeached.

63% think Obama is a socialist.

Is there really any doubt about this any more? BTW, how is Government Motors doing these days?

53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president.

If one compares Palin's and Obama's records as governor and president respectively, is there much doubt anymore? Even the left thinks Obama is incompetent now.

73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

This is extraordinarily hard to believe unless the question was slanted to give the impression that homosexual issues were being taught.

23% want to secede from the United States.

Unfortunately, a percentage on each wing likes to claim that they would leave the United States if the other party was elected. See any number of promises by those on the left to bail for Canada or France if Bush was elected.

31% want contraception to be outlawed.

This is the Catholic position.

Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States.

I continue to be amazed Obama does not put this misapprehension to bed by telling Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate. Then again, maybe an ongoing misapprehension is good for tarring the opposition as "birthers" and raising money.

21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election -- that is, that Obama didn't actually win it, and isn't legitimately the president, with 55% saying they are "not sure." This number is actually significantly lower than it was in a similar question from Public Policy Polling (D) back in November, which said that 52% of Republicans thought ACORN stole it. So does this mean Obama is gaining ground among Republicans? As it is, only just over 20% of Republicans will say that Obama actually won the election.

A similar numer of Dems thought that Dibolt stole the 2004 election for Bush. Wishful thinking on both sides.

Remember that the dKos poll the day before the Brown/Coakley election showed Coakley tied with Brown at 48-48. Every other polling organization - including Coakley's own internal polling - showed Brown with a clear lead.

Ann and other commenters have already pointed out that hiding the questions and other info about the poll makes it clear that this is political propaganda - not polling in any serious sense of the word.

Personally I hope the Democratic Party believes every word of this "poll." The same folks who thought that calling Tea Partiers "racists," "Nazis," "extremists," etc. was a winning electoral strategy still haven't learned the lessons of VA, NJ and MA. Buying into this poll is going to lead them to do more of the same at their own peril. I can't say I feel about that at all.

Personally I think copies of the poll should be sent to every Democratic congressperson and party official. Let them make the 2010 election about the subject of the poll rather than talking about the issues. More power to them. Let's just see how that works out?

I'm willing to roll the dice on this one. Anyone at DNC HQ willing to do the same?

Looking at the crosstabs, most of the questions are completely open to the interpretation.

To take just one example, the question about the teaching of the Bible, are they suggesting that Christianity should supplant science or are they simply saying that it should be given equal treatment with Greek mythology, Islam, etc. where students are taught those particular religions' beliefs - from their creation stories to the particular of their beliefs and rituals?

Since the question is designed to produce a misleading result and respondents aren't given a range of possible answers - simply a yes or no - then the results it obtains are meaningless.

You can go down the list of questions and for almost every single one of them you can come up with several different points of view which would be covered under either "yes" or "no" answers.

Also, the extremely high "Aren't sure" numbers is indicative of the high percentage of respondents who felt the question was either vaguely worded or that the binary response option was insufficient. The high "don't knows" pretty much invalidate any significant reading one way or another the yeses and nos...

As far as thinking that ACORN "stole the 2008" election, I think the answer is an unambiguous YES if you're talking about Al Franken in Minnesota but it was outside the fraud margin on a national basis for Obama. Since "the 2008 election" is an overly broad classification, I should answer yes to the question.

That tells you just how bad the poll questioning is and how it was intentionally designed to produce a misleading result.

FWIW, years ago, I was on a team that commissioned a poll. As I recall, the pollster, based on what we wanted to know, developed the questions. We rearranged the order of some and did a tad bit of wordsmithing. I don't think it is all that uncommon.

dwbh said...If you're curious, here's the full crosstabls for the poll: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

The cross tabs explain a great deal. Go to the bottom. In conformance with the Kos Kidz delusion that the GOP is a southern rump party, R2K grossly overrepresented self identified GOP from 12 states of the South (42%).

Given the outlier finding on homosexuality. I wonder if there was also a screening question concerning religion?

THe outliers are, IMO, that 58% of Republicans polled are Birthers, 31% want contraception outlawed, and 63% oppose hiring homosexual teachers. Those are hard to believe. As is a number that states that a large number believe that Palin is more qualified than Obama without revealing of poll respondents believe she IS qualified to be President.

So it is important to see the sample population.

And the questions: People can be easily swayed with loaded questions.

1. Do you favor hiring gay teachers even if that means their jobs are protected if they offer to take your kid to their place and give him hot oil massages?

2. Do you favor partial birth abortion as well as other forms of contraception? Or do you want that and other forms of legal contraception outlawed.

3. If Obama is unqualified, do you prefer Palin?

4. Until Obama can produce an original copy of his birth certificate, are you willing to personally swear to your God or your life itself that Obama was without any doubt in your mind born in Hawaii???

bagoh20 said... Even if 90% believe Obama was not born in the U.S., so what? It has no effect on anything. They are not demanding some ridiculous and dangerous policy to fix that.

The left's crazy ideas involve destroying things, valuable things.

Actually, being a Birther or someone running around saying he has proof the Mossad blew up the WTC or that the Biltbergers have brought aliens to Earth and the aliens are behind Global Warming Alarmism so they can keep more oil and coal for when their invasion fleet arrives from the Gamma Cluster near Rigel....

Well, IMO, those people are seriously fucked up and I want none of them working on nuke weapons at a AF Base, being hired as a cop with a gun, or representing me in office.

It's not a "so what!!" matter. Someone manifesting deranged behavior or a complete failure of critical thinking in one area or paranoia may be at high risk for replicating the same behaviors in other areas of life. Society should take that in advisement in whether or not it is a warning sign.

It's a judgement call. Someone may find 6,000 year old Earthers completely normal and unthreatening in other avenues of judgment unrelated to extreme Fundi Faith. Someone else who was saying controversial, prophetic things later found out to be right - like Darwin - was treated by many "more careful thinkers" of his day as a sort of Conspiracist, evolution-denier is today.

So we also have a danger of people attempting to suppress the thoughts of "crazy people incorrectly criticizing the wisdom of the Jewish Bolsheviks and Stalin HImself", calling global warming skeptics "Deniers!!" to better demonize them and lump them in with the standard of suppression - holocaust deniers, the people who deny absolute equality of the races in every attribute..

"31% want contraception to be outlawed.This is the Catholic position."

No, it's not. Life-long conservative catholic here. I've never heard any suggestion that contraception should be outlawed preached; a couple of weeks ago we had a homily on "the sanctity of life" (referencing the recent aniversary of Roe v. Wade) which, while it preached against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, didn't even mention birth control, and I've only met a handful of Catholics who even personally embrace the idea of avoiding (artificial)contraceptives.

The closest I've seen to a prohibition is my "engagement encounter" (a pre-marital counseling weekend getaway), where they gave us a little speech on how natural family planning works and recommended that we consider it. We were told that use of birth control is not considered a "sin," but a "poor moral choice," and it was clearly understood that the large majority would ignore these suggestions (we certainly did).

I've never even heard of anyone who wants to make contraception illegal in the U.S., Catholic or otherwise.

I realize it seems like I'm making a big deal out of it; this is because there is a segment of liberals and feminists who want to paint all opposition to abortion with the same broad brush as the tiny minority opposition to contraception, when they are completely different things.

The closest I've seen to a prohibition is my "engagement encounter" (a pre-marital counseling weekend getaway), where they gave us a little speech on how natural family planning works and recommended that we consider it. We were told that use of birth control is not considered a "sin," but a "poor moral choice," and it was clearly understood that the large majority would ignore these suggestions (we certainly did).

I attended Catholic school for 12 glorious years and they were telling us this same line of crap then too. I got into deep shit when I challenged the priest (teacher) saying the ‘sin’ is preventing the birth altogether is it not? So what’s the difference if I use a rubber or just time it when her hormonal planets are out of line? My intention is to prevent conception which is at odds with what the Church was saying was the purpose of the horizontal mambo.

The whole purpose of pushing ‘natural family planning’ was for the Church to come up with a rationale to try to keep the flock in line with Church doctrine knowing that most Catholics nowadays are dancing between the sheets for the sheer fun of it and not to create 12 kid families. If they had that many Catholics say it should be outlawed then they hit on every Opus Dei member in the country.

In Philly, they passed a new ordinance that requires chain restaurants to post calorie info on their menus.

Last night, the local news station ran a story about the chains that have not yet complied and the talking head admonished them that "they have to get in the ball". Nannygate is alive in the hearts of liberals and libs like KOS will do anything to get and keep political power.

If they had that many Catholics say it should be outlawed then they hit on every Opus Dei member in the country.

Yeah pretty much.

Professor I like your question about why conservatives would self identify as other than Republican. I don't let people call me Republican and I am pretty conservative. I'm not sure what's up with that, although of course I am literally not a member of the Republican or any other party. We don't have party registration in Texas.

You could say I was a Republican aligned voter I guess. BTW Texas went for McCain by I think a 12% margin, so it really isn't necessary for all of us to vote here. This state is flaming red.

Well, at least the Republicans in this pseudo-survey have moved on from their old attitudes – like, for instance, when Republican Congressional leaders went around saying that liberals "ought to be lined up and shot".

We were told that use of birth control is not considered a "sin," but a "poor moral choice," and it was clearly understood that the large majority would ignore these suggestions (we certainly did).

So...you will get delux accomodations in Hell, or something?

All this Birther, Acorn, etc. stuff is moot, because everyone saw with their own eyes that O muffed the oath of office on Inauguration Day, making it invalid, and since Bush's term had expired, Dick Cheney is now the rightful president of the United States.

Well, at least the Republicans in this pseudo-survey have moved on from their old attitudes – like, for instance, when Republican Congressional leaders went around saying that liberals "ought to be lined up and shot".

Just to be fair, can I attribute dumbass comments from a few Democrats to all Democrats?

Just curious, what if every single restaurant refused to post the calorie count? What could the city do? Close them all?

They should all post fake and daily flucuating calorie counts, on those electronic ticker type signs. Scrolling across the top of the cashier's area. Who is really going to check to see if a hamburger has 800 or 1200 or 750 or 975 calories especially when it changes from day to day and from burger to burger.

"everyone saw with their own eyes that O muffed the oath of office on Inauguration Day, making it invalid, and since Bush's term had expired, Dick Cheney is now the rightful president of the United States."

I have never met and never heard of anyone who wants contraception outlawed.

Yeah, perhaps what they are labeling “contraception” was actually abortion. That I might believe. The socialist one I buy, or at least lots of people believe he has those tendencies. The other stuff is mostly nonsense.

Whatever, this poll is from Daily Kos. It’s guaranteed to be biased, but it’s interesting only because it betrays what they believe about Republicans. Personally, if I got a call that said it was a Daily Kos poll I would hang up the phone, so I’m not sure who they’re getting to answer these things.

On the gay-teacher result: California rejected the Briggs initiative, which would've banned gay teachers, by 59-42 -- in 1978. The measure even lost in Orange County, the quintessential "Republican stronghold" of its day. Ronald Reagan was one of the most prominent opponents of this proposal -- which didn't hurt his chances at becoming the GOP nominee two years later and carrying California by a wide margin.

Shorter version: Kos is full of shit and his poll is a prank. Caveat emptor.

I would have to agree with previous posters. The question as to ACORN is not Obama's election, but rather, those of others, notably Al Franken. When you have as many fraudulent registrations as we have seen by ACORN, it would not be the least bit surprising if enough people illegally voted for Franken, and maybe a couple others, to put them over the line.

Indeed, there is room to believe that President Obama got his start in Iowa by busing people in from out of state to vote in the caucus there.

But as has been pointed out above, when there is voter fraud these days, it is rare enough that it is unlikely to swing anything except for a razor thin election. Well under 1%. The presidential election was just not that close, and that many illegal votes would have been blindingly obvious to everyone, even the MSM. Well, maybe not MSNBC, esp. Olbermann and Matthews.

Considering the number of people (included elected members of the US House of Representatives) who were Truthers....

Oh... and recognizing that people don't always tell someone the truth, even if they say they are telling the truth...

- I wouldn't answer that I wanted Obama impeached. But I'd be tempted to, just because. In the end, though, all "impeached" means any more is "I don't like what he is doing." That's all it meant for Bush and it was a constant thing that is still going on... this call for some sort of criminal proceedings. You can't blame 39% of Republicans for going with the new definition of the word "impeach" or the new standards necessary for calling for impeachment. So, I believe that 39% could be accurate.

- Obama is certainly socialist. He's got an ideological blind spot in relation to the economy that simply *believes* that social justice will make the rain fall and the flowers bloom.

- Did the question of Obama's birth ask "Are you *sure* that Obama was born in the United States?" The only way I can reconcile 42% is if it includes everyone from a hard-core birther to anyone who wasn't willing to insist on their own authority that it wasn't possible that Obama was born elsewhere and that they were only 90% sure.

- Stealing the election is another case of going with the new definition of "steal" in relation to elections. Can't blame people for that, really. At least, I don't.

- Sarah Palin, running for VP, was more qualified than Obama. Not much more, but she was.

- I'd want to see how the question about succession was worded. It's also one of the questions I'd suspect respondents to lie about. OTOH, I don't think anyone is serious about it, but what resident of North Dakota hasn't (for example) pointed out that if the Dakota's and Wyoming decided to go it on their own they'd be a global nuclear power? And Texas still votes to stay in the Union each year, making sure to honor the idea that they aren't constrained to do so. This is practically a national pastime. It's just not that shocking.

- I think that the gay school teacher question might be accurate if the question was "openly". But it would also be about 73% for "Do you think that teachers with nude pictures on the internet or a history of sex work or film should be allowed to teach in schools?" It's not the same, precisely, but the fact is that parents don't want *anything* about sex to come up in relationship to their children.

- 31% objecting to contraception, maybe, but that's still more than I'd expect to find who reject contraception in their own lives. Wanting to outlaw it? Only if the question is worded to include the morning-after pill. In that case, it might be as high as 31%.

Re: "I'd still like to know why he doesn't just release the original, doctor-signed copy of his birth certificate."

Because he does not have it. He only has the document that Hawaii sent him in 2007, the new, official birth certificate of Hawaii, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the same birth certificate it has been sending to everyone since about 2001.

However, the Certification is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by all the departments in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked.) And it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US military and the US State Department.

Then why doesn't Hawaii send out a copy of the original? That is Hawaii's decision, and it is under a Republican governor. However, it has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, by having the top officials of the Department of Health say that the original document in the files confirms the Certification and that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Obama may or may not have been born in the US(which court, or inquiring mind would accept the word of an unsworn website?). The fact that his father was never a citizen makes him ineligible for POTUS. Natural Born Citizens are born in the US to 2 US Citizen Parents.

After reading this article I had some doubt about the poll. However, after reading the posts I believe the poll is pretty accurate.

Sadly, the republican strategy of fear and hatred continues to be effective. What do you all think will happen when they retake control? Do you honestly think they are going to make any meaningful cuts? My bet is that they'll, as usual, cut taxes (because it is easy) and pray to Jesus that the next president will cut spending (because it is hard). Worked great for Reagan -- at least according to most of you folks. Nevermind the record deficits he ran...because he's REAGAN!

Yeah, that MUST be it, Ann...it was the way the polling was conducted.

Well, tell me how they could have framed their questions to more fully explain these responses:

• 39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached.(For what?)

• 23% want to secede from the United States.(And go where??)

• 31% want contraception to be outlawed.(All birth control measures...outlawed?)

• 31% believe Obama is a racist who hates White people?(He hates his own mother?)

• 68% say gay couples should not receive any state or federal benefits?(Would they no longer have to pay taxes?)

• 73% think openly gay men and women should not be allowed to teach in public schools?(Other than pure homophobia...why?)

51% do not think sex education be taught in the public schools?(Welcome to the 1950's)

77% think public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?(This should fit in nicely with the actual "science" courses)

31% believe all contraceptive use be outlawed?(Did they mention who would be adopting all of the children?)

34% believe birth control pill is abortion?(Can we then assume well over 90% of them, at one time or another...aborted a child?)

67% believe that the ONLY way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?(That's right...anybody who is NOT a Christian...goes to hell)

Unfortunately, based on what I've seen in the last few years I just don't think Republicans are being honest about cutting spending. If we have to choose between big spending and tax cuts or big spending and tax increases then I'm afraid I'm going with the latter. If I gotta choose between becoming Western Europe or India...easy choice.

"How do you figure? (I'm legitimately asking- the constitution doesn't define the term "natural born citizen," and I don't understand where that definition comes from.)"

Of course the USC doesn't define Natural Born Citizen, it was writtebn in the plain language of the day, and the term was a well known term of art from Vattels Law of Nations. Law of Nations was a very well known treatise on Natural Law that was heavily referenced by the framers (Natural God given rights = Bill of Rights). What, just because it wasn't defined it has no meaning? There are 5 Supreme Court cases about citizenship which define the term Natural Born Citizen in dicta, The Venus (1817), Dred Scott (1854), Minor v. Happersett (1873), Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1929). ALL of them define Natural Born Citizen as Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents. There are no references to Natural Born Citizen in ANY SCOTUS case that define it as anything less. Obama, of course, knows this since he is a Constitutional Scholar. As a matter of fact Minor v. Happersett made not that the definition was not in the USC, which since that was in 1873 means that it is not a "Born" Citizen of the 14th Amendment (1866).

WASHINGTON — Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

One is born a citizen of the US by either having *one* US citizen parent (your mother) or by being born in the United States, no matter who your parents are.

One "birther" argument that I heard said, yes, yes, this is true... one US citizen parent (your mother).. but was arguing that Obama didn't count because his mother was a minor (was she? I don't know.)

I mean... OMGawd... his mother wasn't an adult and therefore he loses his citizenship? What!?

Your hair splitting is no different. Might as well argue over the meaning of the word "is."

Being a citizen of the United States is important to many people who view the stupid arguments against Obama as an argument against themselves.

My first child was born overseas. Am I supposed to be open to the argument that I could have *done something wrong* and deprived him of US citizenship, just because I screwed up?

This is a non-starter in so many ways, and while possibly an interesting intellectual question, it's most likely to piss a whole lot of people off.

Again, I'm not a Birther, because apparently that's like being a flat Earther, BUT why don't they release the original Birth certificate. What possible justification could there be to withhold information so important and at issue. Why have such a document if it's can't be viewed. Is it like the Mohammad's face that we must not see?

No, I am following the National security provision of the USC relating to the eligibility of the POTUS (the idea is to increase the possibility of allegiance). If he would have been 34 years old he would be just as ineligible.

Synova says,

"One is born a citizen of the US by either having *one* US citizen parent (your mother) or by being born in the United States, no matter who your parents are."

Right, but that doesn't make one a Natural Born citizen. Senators or governors can be "Citizens", POTUSs must be Natural Born citizens to be eligible.

Synova says,

"I mean... OMGawd... his mother wasn't an adult and therefore he loses his citizenship? What!?"

That would only be the case if not born on US soil, and i don't have enough info to determine that. Do you accept the word of an unsworn website that is run by an organization that Obama once worked for? Regardless, even if born in the White House he os not Natural Born since he has already admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth.

Synova says,

"Being a citizen of the United States is important to many people who view the stupid arguments against Obama as an argument against themselves.

My first child was born overseas. Am I supposed to be open to the argument that I could have *done something wrong* and deprived him of US citizenship, just because I screwed up?

This is a non-starter in so many ways, and while possibly an interesting intellectual question, it's most likely to piss a whole lot of people off."

And you would be wrong. Since your daughter was born to an American Citizen (I'm assuming) then she is a US Citizen, but since she was born abroad she is not a Natural Born Citizen eligible to be POTUS. I find this response common. A US Citizen has just as many "rights" as a Natural Born Citizen. They are just not eligible to be POTUS. The ability to be POTUS is not a "Right", and one must qulify by being a Natural Born Citizen, be 35 years old and be 14 years US resident. Why should it piss anyone off to follow the National Security provision of NBC eligibility of the USC? By the way McCain (born in Colon, Panama) is NOT a Natural Born citizen either.

"Again, I'm not a Birther, because apparently that's like being a flat Earther, BUT why don't they release the original Birth certificate. What possible justification could there be to withhold information so important and at issue. Why have such a document if it's can't be viewed. Is it like the Mohammad's face that we must not see?"

The reason is that it effectively creates a conspiracy theory that shields the real Constitutional Issue that he has already admitted. That issue is the FACT that Obama admitted that he was born a Dual Citizen w/ Britain here, right under the big green COLB, where it says Factcheck:

How can a Natural Born Citizen have his Citizenship "Governed" by Britain? He can't, since the aim of the requirement is to have no competing claims of allegiance at birth. So they create this conspiracy theory to cloud the issue, and call the "birthers" "crazies". But are they that crazy to not accept the word of an unsworn website run by an organization that once employed Obama? Who's hands are those inspecting the COLB? Are they qualified to make any assumptions (are they document experts? No). Meanwhile the reason that he doesn't qualify is already admitted and is staring us all in the face. He was a Dual Citizen at birth, as such he is NOT a Natural Born citizen.

Re: "Natural Born Citizens are born in the US to 2 US Citizen Parents."

No they are simply born in the USA. That is the original meaning of Natural Born. It was used at the time as a synonym for Native Born, and in fact it was far more popular than Native Born. John Adams, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamiliton, Etc all used it--and never used it to mean "born in the US to two US citizen parents." They only used the term to mean "born in the country."

Yes, the purpose of the Natural Born Citizen clause was to prevent the president from having allegiance to a foreign country. BUT, the writers of the Constitution believed that birth in the USA was the sole criterion of allegiance, and that if someone was born in the USA, that is sufficient to ensure loyalty legally.

Madison said that the sole criterion of allegiance in the United States is the place of Birth, and Blackstone said that a person has only one allegiance, to the country where she or he is born.

So, the result is that foreigners cannot be president (because they are not citizens, of course). And naturalized citizens cannot be president. But the children of foreigners who are born in the USA are Natural Born and hence are eligible to be president.

"Yes, the purpose of the Natural Born Citizen clause was to prevent the president from having allegiance to a foreign country. BUT, the writers of the Constitution believed that birth in the USA was the sole criterion of allegiance, and that if someone was born in the USA, that is sufficient to ensure loyalty legally."

Ah Mr. Strauss, spreading your nonsense her also I see. Show me the SCOTUS case that says that a Natural Born Citizen is any less than born in the US to 2 Citizen parents. You can't. Natural Born SUBJECTS were born in country according to Blackstone. We are CITIZENS not SUBJECTS of the state. The founders fought to gain freedom from the British Common Law. Our law is Natural Law as per Vattel's Law of Nations and A1C8S10. You lie of course when speaking of Madison, as you know he was speaking of those born in the various states, but that is par for the course for a Obama Bridgetender like yourself.

Mark: you might want to read through this as many times as are necessary, making sure to see the links too.

As for the post and my previous comment, it's extremely disappointing to find almost no one offering a logical, valid argument as to whether the poll can be trusted. (Simply saying it's from DK isn't a valid argument; I tried to get others to provide a valid argument but I'm not a polling expert).

I am surprised that the daily Kos didn't recommend all their readers run for the hills. Since they are describing extreme behaviors, the percentages applied lead to the following conclusions: 1. In red states as many as 1/3 of all people are f***ing nuts. 2. In blue states at least 1/6 of all people are f***ing nuts. No sane person would live in anyplace surrounded by this level of ubiquitous insanity. I think this is why the numbers cannot possibly be true.

Re: "Show me the SCOTUS case that says that a Natural Born Citizen is any less than born in the US to 2 Citizen parents..."

When someone is both Natural Born and a citizen, one is a Natural Born Citizen.

The Wong Kim Ark case of the Supreme Court ruled very clearly that every child born in the USA is Natural Born.

It said:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Note that it said EVERY child born in England, or the colonies or the early states, or under the Constitution is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign ambassadors or foreign invaders).

EVERY CHILD.

Moreover, this is exactly the way that the writers of the Constitution used the phrase Natural Born. They used it as a synonym for native born (which was not popular at the time). But Natural Born was a very common expression among the American leaders, and they always used it to mean "born in the country."

There has never been an Article II case, so obviously there has never been a direct ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is for presidential purposes. But the Wong Kim Ark case makes very clear the meaning of Natural Born.

If you would like me to show some quotations from such AMERICAN leaders at the time of the Constitution as Hamilton and Adams using Natural Born, I'd be glad to provide them. They NEVER use the phrase to mean "two citizen parents." They only use it to mean "born in the country."

Re: "You lie of course when speaking of Madison, as you know he was speaking of those born in the various states..."

These are Madison's actual words:

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

So Madison believed that the one criterion of allegiance in the United States is the place of birth, and Blackstone thought that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country of his or her birth.

Re: we are citizens not subjects.

Why should citizens have to have two parents from the country and subjects none?

Moreover, the use of the word citizen was often used interchangeably with subject at about that time. The first Constitution of New York State (1777), which was largely written by John Jay, speaks of "subjects" of the state.

Vermont continues the use of Natural Born Subject in its Constitution of 1786, saying "Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath of affirmation of allegiance...may purchase...hold, and acquire land...and entitled to all the rights of a Natural Born Subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lt. Gov., [Etc] until after two-years residency."(http://books.google.com/books?id=7qMYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3760&dq=%22good+character+who+comes+to+settle+in+this+state,+having+first+taken+an+oath+or+affirmation+of+allegiance+to+the+same,+may+purchase,+or+by+other+just+means+acquire,+hold,+and+transfer+land+or+other+real+estate%22#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22&f=false)

This quotation shows that citizen and subject were used interchangeably to some extent at the time, and it also shows that Natural Born did not mean "two citizen [or subject] parents, but only meant birth in the state.

A quotation from Alexander Hamilton shows much the same thing, that Natural Born could only have meant born in the country because he says that there were only two kinds of subjects, naturalized and natural born.

Lonewacko, whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" or not, he is President and will remain President without regard to any aspect of his parentage.

In other words, that dog won't hunt.

So why flog the dog? For a very large majority of the electorate, that line of attack leaves a bad taste in the mouth that detracts from other less legalistic (and frankly xenophobic) arguments that actually resonate with the non-ideological pure.

So yes, obsessing on Obama's birth certificate is absolutely as harmful to Conservatives as trying to defend the best little whorehouse-enablers is to Progressives.

"When someone is both Natural Born and a citizen, one is a Natural Born Citizen."

Of course you are lying again, just like on all the other blogs you've been on as the Obama Brigdetender. Do you mean born vaginally on US soil? Your comment makes no sense.

smrstrauss said,

"The Wong Kim Ark case of the Supreme Court ruled very clearly that every child born in the USA is Natural Born."

The Wong Kim Ark case said no such thing (you lie again). It said that the children born of REISDENT DOMICILED ALIENS are CITIZENS. It also said that the Citizen child of an ALIEN has the same rights as the NATURAL BORN child of a CITIZEN. Subjects and Citizens are 2 entirely different things, and is at the heart of our seoparation from Britain, so who are you fooling?

"So why flog the dog? For a very large majority of the electorate, that line of attack leaves a bad taste in the mouth that detracts from other less legalistic (and frankly xenophobic) arguments that actually resonate with the non-ideological pure."

Non ideologically pure? Thats rich. Constitutional Relativism is the death of the Republic. It is not Xenophobic to demand that the POTUS be free of any claims to allegiance. It is a National Security provision. Do you think that the child of the Iranian Dictator carried by an American woman and born in the US should be eligible to be POTUS?

Maybe Althouse needs to open her eyes and really see the craziness taking hold in the GOP/Religious Right base. I wasn't surprised by these poll results much at all. It reflects what I often hear coming out of ring-wingers' mouths with my own ears.

Althouse has been busy trashing every little thing Obama says or does for the past year, and has not paid much attention to how inreasingly wacko the Religious Right has become.

With that said, I think the craziness rises fast on either the left or the right when they are out of power. We currently have single-party rule, and that is unhealthy for America. But, that was the consequence of the failed Bush presidency.

"Maybe Althouse needs to open her eyes and really see the craziness taking hold in the GOP/Religious Right base. I wasn't surprised by these poll results much at all. It reflects what I often hear coming out of ring-wingers' mouths with my own ears."

Spoken like a true Leftist. Have you seen the idiocy that is going on in Congress? If you think it is not idiocy you are a fool. By the way I agree that the Religious fanatics should be held at arms length, but politics makes strange bedfellows.

I self-identify as a "Republican-who-holds-some-Conservaive-Values" (Pro-life).

The reason I won't identify myself as "Conservative" has more to do with how the adjective gets used, more than anything else. It's used more and more not as a indicator of political belief, as much as it being used as a tribal affiliation.

Nowadays, "Conservative" seems to mean that all issues must be viewed through the lens of "God, Guns and Gays", and if you don't fall on the right side of those categories, you aren't "Conservative" enough for the "tribal conservatives".

This was the argument against, for example, Rudy Giuliani in many quarters: even though he had a record as a fiscal conservative, advanced small government ideals in New York City, was all for law-and-order, he was also in favor of gun control, gay rights and was divorced a few times.

For Mitt Romney, being a Mormon was the next best thing to being a Devil-Worshiper for some of the Tribal Conservatives.

This is the kiss of death in any primary where large numbers of the God, Guns and Gays Conservatives come out to vote, and is a signifigant impediment to more moderate (but still Conservative) candidates.

And yes, that was a rather broad brush, but the general principle still holds true.

"Actually, I'm a bit of a Constitutional purist; I just know when a battle is lost. Give it up and focus on things people will care about, like the upcoming middle-class tax increases."

If you don't care about the national security provision of Natural Born Citizenship as per the POTUS then you are no "Constitutional purist". That statement is just laughable. It is not only about Obama, it's who comes next also. Obama knows this. He and his sychphants have tried for years to change the NBC requirement as "outdated", or "unfair". Nonsense. The founders were smarter thabn any of them. Obama is exactly the type of man that the founders would have prevented from being POTUS. I.E. born w/ competing allegiances.

FWIW: Fordham Univ. ranked Research 2000 as their 7th most accurate pollster (out of 20 outfits) of the 2008 Pres. election. Rasmussen was #1.

Nate Silver had them pegged at 8th out of 32 outfits.

Overall, their reputation seems solid.

One other quick note. The question of natural born/foreign born was conducted by Research 2000 back in July with roughly the same numbers. Pollster.com did a few articles on the result and found the poll statistically significant and valid.

"One other quick note. The question of natural born/foreign born was conducted by Research 2000 back in July with roughly the same numbers. Pollster.com did a few articles on the result and found the poll statistically significant and valid."

You still don't get it, like a lot of peple. Natural born Citizenship is not only reliant on being Domestically Born. It must also be to 2 Citizen parents. It is the Unity of Soil and Blood to form pure citizenship, where there is no competing allegiance. Natural Law. Vattel. Law of Nations. A1S8C10.

Maybe Althouse needs to open her eyes and really see the craziness taking hold in the GOP/Religious Right base. I wasn't surprised by these poll results much at all.

Let's pretend that the poll is something other than a bad joke.

Pretending that, what do the results say about the dreaded "Religious Right" which you frighten your children with? There's only one question there, the contraception one, which is even slightly religious in nature.

"And you would be wrong. Since your daughter was born to an American Citizen (I'm assuming) then she is a US Citizen, but since she was born abroad she is not a Natural Born Citizen eligible to be POTUS. I find this response common. A US Citizen has just as many "rights" as a Natural Born Citizen. They are just not eligible to be POTUS."

Mick... you've just disqualified every single child born to US military overseas and you can go fuck yourself and the moby you rode in on.

Mick... you've just disqualified every single child born to US military overseas and you can go fuck yourself and the moby you rode in on.

Thanks.

Well Thankyou! Just like John McCain (Resolution 511 was a sham and has no force of law), none of the children you describe would be eligible to be POTUS. McCain was born in Colon, Panama, but even if he was born on the base he would not be qualified. The reason is the Naturalization Act of 1795, which repealed the words "Natural Born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 (look it up). Those children are Citizens, but not Natural Born Citizens. John McCain is no hero. He is the primary reason that we have a Usurper in the WH, and all of them know it, including Obama. Like I said before, your reaction is common, but eligibility to be POTUS is not a "right".

I do get what you're trying to push - I'm just not buying it as it has no fact or basis in law.

There is a difference.

Additionally, my point was that the group which conducted the poll (which dealt with more than just natural citizenship) has been considered reliable in the past by center/left/right leaning pollsters and thinkers. Thus, I am not going be so quick to dismiss the results as hyper-partisan.

Having thought about this a bit more I think you are much more likely to get results like this by polling Southern Baptists in Mississippi than Catholics anywhere in the US, even of the Opus Dei variety.

As far as Research2000 is concerned, they had Coakley over Brown 49-41 on January 14th. So they were wrong by 13 points 5 days before that election.

I do get what you're trying to push - I'm just not buying it as it has no fact or basis in law.

There is a difference."

No you don't "get" what I am trying to push, and it absolutely does have basis in law. 5 cases describe Natural Born Citizen in Dicta exactly as Vattel did. NOT ONE SCOTUS case describes it as anything less. Law of Nations is absolutely known to be heavily referenced for the Constitution (where do you think that the Bill of Rights came from?). Natural Law IS our common law (A1S8C10). Two early Naturallization laws (1790 and 1795) give clues as to the same definition. Your "no basis in law" comment is typical of the Obama apologists who produce NO argument to support their theory that birth on US soil equals Natural Born Citizen. What supports that position. There is 200 years of precedent of POTUS's born on US soil of Citizen PARENTS (except for those born before 1787 and grandfathered in by A2S1C5. There is John Bingham's definition during the 14 Amendment hearings (less than 100 years from ratification of USC). There is the fact that the Term, Natural Born Citizen, ONLY appeared in one placeprior to the USC being written (we are not subjects, we are citizens). There is the fact that Marbury v. Madison held that the use of one clause in the USC to make others moot is an iNADMISSABLE argument (if a born citizen of the 14A is a Natural Born Citizen then there is no need for A2S1C4,5). There is the FACT that Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition is NOT IN THE USC. so therefore it is not in the 14A (1866). Do you want more? Where is your evidence stating that the definition is otherwise (not circuit courts, and activist judges, only SCOTUS)? You have said NOTHING.

Meh, I'm bored with Mick and natural born citizenship now. I was just curious as to where he was getting the definition that he espoused. *************What really bugs me: the liberals here keep coming back with some variation of "This poll proves everything I've ever observed, ever." But they give no basis for this, no specific observations, and no issues shown in the poll that they have seen from these commenters.

I'll say it again. We'll give you Palin's more qualified than Pres. O (but that's not saying much) and subjective opinions on socialism. Where else, on this site or not, have you seen ANY of the other opinions in a way that could be considered widespread among Republicans?

As I said above, I'm in the lion's den, and I'm not seeing it. Master cylinder, Garage, Loafing Oaf, Jeremy, chuck b., and any others I've missed haven't, either.

I want to think that liberals on this site are thinking critically, I really do. They don't give me much help, though.

"Meh, I'm bored with Mick and natural born citizenship now. I was just curious as to where he was getting the definition that he espoused. "

And that's why it has been allowed to happen. Not enough people, including supposed lawyers that know something about the USC, care that there has been a Usurpation of the office of POTUS! How can you think that a violation by our highest officer (who is a USC expert, and knows he is violating it), of eligibility for the office, is not a huge Constitutional crisis? Such is the Constitutional relativism that will be the death of the Republic. You are an example of the symptom.

Sorry, Mick, Hon, but I just can't get that excited about it (even if I were to assume that all of what you say is completely true with no counter-arguments, which I wouldn't without some independant research).

If I want to get excited about constitutional crisies, there's a lot more to worry about with things being read into the constitution because whoever just wants them to be there, or attempts to assault free speech (hey, we can agree that McCain was no prince there!) or freedom of religion.

President Obama's policies are damaging, but they have nothing to do with where his father is from. I'm excited about his policies and the attitudes espoused by his supporters. The accident of his birth means nothing to me.

After a year of watching Obama in action, I don't think that it is too much of stretch to think that Sarah Palin would be more qualified as president.

The same could be said of Urkel. Or Curly, man's favorite stooge.

I agree. It is not a very high bar.

I think it is a real shame that the first black President is such an incompetent ideologue. Of course, there is a good chance that if we ever see his original birth certificate it will have his race marked as "White".

Re: "Law of Nations was a very well known treatise on Natural Law that was heavily referenced by the framers..."

Vattel was a great guy, but the Framers did not follow everything he suggested. For example, he recommended that every country should have a state religion and to force people to join that religion or allow them to leave the country.

And, he was a monarchist. He never recommends elections. He never says that the leader of a country should be a citizen, much less a Natural Born Citizen. He give several examples of countries picking their kings and emperors from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that this is a bad thing.

About 60-70% of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers, and the use of the term Natural Born was very common in the law that they were familiar with, the laws of England and the laws of the American colonies. IF they had used Natural Born differently from the most common use of it at the time--which was in the common law--they would have said that they were using it differently.

They did not say any such thing. AND, they did not say "two citizen parents." All that they said was Natural Born, and dozens of quotations from AMERICAN leaders at the time show that the meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats)."

And that is the way the Wong Kim Ark case rules also, that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.

""Vattel was a great guy, but the Framers did not follow everything he suggested. For example, he recommended that every country should have a state religion and to force people to join that religion or allow them to leave the country."

I didn't say they used everything. Who are you kidding.

smrstrauss said,""They did not say any such thing. AND, they did not say "two citizen parents." All that they said was Natural Born, and dozens of quotations from AMERICAN leaders at the time show that the meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats)."

No they said NATURAL BORN CITIZEN not Natural Born Subject.

smrstrauss said,And that is the way the Wong Kim Ark case rules also, that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.""

No, you lie again (it's a common thing). It said that children born in the US of RESIDENT DOMICILED ALIENS are Citizens (specifically, read the case).